Do You Read Sutter Cain?

'In The Mouth of Madness' is a film by John Carpenter that has a special place in my heart, not because it was panned badly upon it's release (WHY?!) but because it shows Carpenter at his best when he has control of his project with minimal interference by high-faloutin' studios. It is not necessarily a scary movie (at least not to me), but it has a brilliant unsettling atmosphere to it, why, one could almost say this movie is what would have happened if Carpenter and H.P Lovecraft met...

Because it IS! :-D

In 2003, John Carpenter wrote a introduction to a comic book that told a fictional account of Lovecraft's life, saying- "Most people who have watched my movies will notice my recognition of [those footprints of Howard Phillips Lovecraft]. From Innsmouth references in 'The Fog', to the general premise of 'In The Mouth of Madness', I have used the tools of cinema to put my own spin on the Lovecraftian mythos." This being such an obvious statement aside, his sonnet to Lovecraft in this movie is certainly fit to be considered Lovecraftian because it does stay true to Lovecraft's unique brand of terror all the while keeping Carpenter in his horror element.

John Trent (Sam Neill) works for a book publishing firm (with none other than Charleton Heston as his manager in an inspired cameo), and when one of their most distinguished and popular clients, Sutter Cain, goes missing, complete with his manuscripts, Trent and a fellow collegue Styles, (Julie Carmen) track Cain's last known whereabouts to Hobb's End, a sleepy little town that does not show up on any map. Once there, they look for the elusive Cain, but find many other things in his stead, strange things... frightening things.

 Item A

Item B

I'm not going to say any more than that plot-wise, but trust me, this movie deserves a better reputation than what it already has. While fellow director Stuart Gordon is the go-to guy when it comes to modernizing Lovecraft for today's audiences, Carpenter's passion for the writer's work is evident. Some of you may be familiar with Carpenter's Apocalpyse Trilogy which involves 'The Thing', 'Prince of Darkness' and this film, all of which deal with the end of the human race due to means we cannot and perhaps wouldn't want to understand. In this case, the apocalypse is brought around by a work of fiction that is so powerful that it ends up turning the world and the people who live in it upside down. In this case, it is Cain's wild tales of monsters, dimensional travel and age-old cosmic beings that bring forth the twilight of humanity. A belief that I have is that all of Carpenter's films have some sly satirical edge (excluding the obvious context of 'They Live!'), in 'Madness's case, it is a commentary on religion and how fundamentalist mass belief can bring about destruction. When you consider a religious work such as The Bible, what is, at least from an academic point of view, a fairy tale book, despite it's fantastical tales, people out there believe this book to be the truth, or at least parts of it. The result of such a blind belief has been countless wars, unresolved disputes, double standards on top of countless other atrocities, all because of folks who take an idea and twist it to suit their means, never taking into consideration the needs of others. On a lesser (but still, in my opinion, destructive :P) scale, the 'Twilight' phenomenon has taken the world by storm, and there are girls (and older women) out there who want their very own Edward Cullen, on the real. How scary is that?!

Terrifying...

Waxing philosophical aside (and really, I could go on and on about the discrepencies about the interpretation of religion and faith), this is a fine horror film with likeable performances, trippy visual effects and a compelling narrative. You may not piss your pants and you may sleep just fine after you see it, but this is one of Carpenter's best films of the 90's that still rings loud and clear today. If you are a horror fan, do yourself a favour and see it. You will be rewarded. To those critics who panned this movie due to your narrow-mindedness and likewise sense of perspective, I ask you...

Do you read Sutter Cain? >:-D

Edward, meet Valek, Valek, eviscerate Edward

Ordinarily, a film known as a 'guilty pleasure' is one that somebody really loves but is too ashamed to admit because they know how silly it is even if it does have moments of awesomeness. Given I really have no shame as far as my tastes are concerned, film lovers, here is my confession: I adore John Carpenter's last film of the 90's 'Vampires'.

Back in 1998, Carpenter was steadily travelling down the slope of commercial decline- 'Escape From LA', 'Village of the Damned' and 'In The Mouth of Madness' had been spanked like babies at the box office (in regards to 'Madness' I really must ask why), leaving even the most steadfast of fans questioning whether Carpenter truly had what it took. When he made 'Ghost of Mars' in 2001, he all but dropped off the edge of the Earth, save for a couple of interviews and giving his blessings on the inevitable remakes of his earlier greats such as 'The Fog' (UGH) and 'Assault on Precinct 13' (very respectable!). He has since made 'The Ward' that was released without much fanfare last year (I have yet to see that), but I digress.

'Vampires' is brash, bloody, border misogynistic, and absolutely rambunctious, but in my eyes, it's a jam of a movie. Carpenter has made it no secret in his movies that he loves Westerns- he has somehow managed to slide his own homages to Hawks, Wayne and Peckinpah into almost all of his movies. Perhaps it was this film's over the top attitude that didn't win audiences over when it was released in cinemas. In response to this revelation, I say: this flick was never meant to be some deep insight of the human spirit in times of adversity- this is a popcorn movie that actually had it's fang firmly in cheek. This movie has screaming, animalistic vampires ripping through human beings like they were butter (no sparkles or lost loves here!), gaudy red blood splashing the walls of seedy hotels, macho vampire hunters weilding oversized crossbows and enormous silver tipped stakes, all to the sound of Western blues music. No, this movie ain't for everybody but to me it's tarnished gold.

Jack Crow (James Woods) heads a Vatican-funded vampire hunting squad stationed in New Mexico. These hardened mercenaries are paid oodles of money to hunt down vampire nests and subsequently exterminating all of the undead souls that live in them. Think of them as Blackwater (only perhaps with a few more morals as evidenced with these 'Rules' they adhere when it comes to efficient vampire hunting). However, despite these rules, what Jack and his team aren't prepared for is that the big bad booty vampire Daddy Valek had just about had the last straw and he comes looking for revenge...

                                 But not before he gets into trouble using velcro and a trampoline.

Small sob story- Despite some low key advertising, this movie was not shown in my hometown at the time which greatly bumed me. I had followed the progress of the movie when stills surfaced online and I was literally counting down the days. I went so far as to write to the cinema asking if they would ever screen it and they said they would show it for one night during a fucking midnight screening during a week night. WHUT? And this was a few days before my birthday- yeah, I was heartbroken. So finally, when it was released on video, all but ZOOMED into Blockbuster, watched it and love was born.

One of the best things about this movie from a horror fiend's point of view is that a great many of the effects are practical, sometimes made on the set. If you're familiar with KNB make up, you will know they specialise in some truly wet stuff, and in 'Vampires' they seriously don't lag. You get shot off hands spewing viscous black fluid, stringy intestines hanging out of bodies and thick blood geysering left and right. In perhaps one of the most greatest scenes that shows an example of this, when the ultra pissed off Valek (Thomas Ian Griffith) crashes a celebration party held by the slayers, he rips through everybody in the room with relish. It's a brief sequence to be sure, but boy does it count. Another credit to the vampires in this movie is that there are no sparkles, no interviews, no long lost loves- these vampires are animals. They have long, pointed incisors, translucent pale skin with veins streaking across their flesh, claws for nails and just over all meeeeeaaannn attitudes. The only vampires that have truly matched the ones in this movie are the '30 Days of Night' vamps. I would dare to say that if Valek and his crew met the Cullens, there wouldn't even be one smidge of sparkle left on the ground because Valek's pack would thoroughly extinct them.

Now, halfway through the movie, the momentum slows down and the vampires somewhat take a backseat as it focuses on Crow and his remaining allies trying to track Valek down thanks to a burgeoning psychic connection a bitten hooker Katrina (Sheryl Lee, yes, LAURA PALMER) has (BTW, how and where Valek bites Katrina... holy heck... I bet you any amount of money that you have not seen that done in any vampire movie to date). This is perhaps where another element of criticism the movie has earned come from- there is very little physical action, but you know, the middle doesn't feel like some filler. At least it takes the time out to explain the origins of the vampires and to concentrate on Katrina's turning rather than shoves a couple of sentences in our faces and goes on it's merry way. Another factor on top of this is Katrina's treatment. She is basically regarded as an object, a piece of meat, who just happens to have what Jack needs to find Valek. She is slapped, pushed and stripped down by Jack and his second in charge Tony Montoya (Daniel Baldwin). No doubt, women who are sensitive to these matters will find this extremely offensive, and in that regard, I don't blame them, however, she is also the most human anchor we have in this movie. She may not do a lot of arse kicking or spits one liners, but her metamorphis is handled in such a way you feel her pain. As time goes on, Montoya develops a deep sympathy for her plight and defends her honor when Jack gives her a difficult time. No, it's not the most believable love story, but the fact that we can relate most to Katrina negates the idea that John Carpenter is a secret woman hater.

Another point that does demand some attention is that when the end comes,  it really is anti-climatic. I was expecting an all out battle of the giants between Crow and Valek, only to have a resolution that felt perhaps the most tacked on plot point of the movie. It's not wholly unforgivable, but come on- the movie has built up to this moment, but it doesn't deliver, a pity.

                                        This doesn't stop Woods from being a bad mofo though

Although this movie is arguably more about the slayers as opposed to the vampires, Valek and his pack still get some fantastic moments, one of them being when the big daddy himself and several of his lieutenants rise from the dirt as the sun sets. Apparently, the special effects folks formulated small box devices that the vampire actors wore over their faces while they were buried under a few inches in earth to provide them with air. Regards to not just the effects crew but also the actors- being buried in the earth, however only a few inches deep is a scary prospect, but that fear doesn't show in the sequence.

So okay, this film ultimately is very goofy and quite offensive, and really, the modest budget does show at times that you can have a good laugh at it's expense. Also, the dialogue, for all of it's heart and humor is pretty corny and eye-roll inducing, and the fact James Woods wears incredibly tight denim jeans will either make you chortle or chunder, but you know, as they say, what is one person's trash is another person's pleasure and I don't think I will ever hate 'Vampires' because it's the type of trash I consider a contemporary B-grade classic.